MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110970486 · doi:10.1139/p00-094

<i>l</i>-Type doubling: Herzberg versus Nielsen

2001· article· en· W2110970486 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. K. G. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular Spectroscopy and Structure
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsType (biology)BendingDoubling timeTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1942 Gerhard Herzberg demonstrated the existence of l-type doubling in a number of bending fundamental levels of linear molecules. He attributed the doubling partly to asymmetric-top effects and partly to Coriolis interactions with the stretching modes, but Harald Nielsen and Wave Shaffer claimed that it is a purely Coriolis effect. The dispute, which was due mainly to errors in theoretical calculations, lasted for several years. This paper presents a summary of the controversy, based on published papers and letters exchanged between the main participants. PACS No.: 33.10

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicMolecular Spectroscopy and StructureFrench-language works237,207